Report 1623
Report #1623 Skillset: Tarot Skill: Lust Org: Shofangi Status: Completed Apr 2017 Furies' Decision: Solution 2, reject all costs 2/person with a max of 5 persons. Problem: Lust, specifically rejecting lust is overly hindering currently, particularly against tarot users and psychometabolism users. Against tarot, lust serves as an offensive issue if you are a class that primarily uses enemy lists (mage, bard, sometimes guardian) and serves as a defensive issue as well due to empress. A tarot user can fling lust every 3s at base, but it costs 4s to "cure". This means that against a target who must keep someone enemied that they will be off balance continuously. This also means that multiple allied tarot users can fling lust resulting in a 4s x (number of tarot users) cure time to not be empressed back in the room. A psychometabolism user passively lusts every 15s meaning that to keep that person enemied costs 4s/15s which is ~26% of the time. This report seeks to reduce the effectiveness of lust as a hindering tool. 7 R: 2 Solution #1: Reduce base rejection time to 3s, making it equivalent to fling lust. Introduce a REJECT ALL syntax which costs 6s or a scaling amount based on number of rejections. R: 0 Solution #2: Reduce base rejection time to 2s. Introduce a REJECT ALL syntax which costs 6s or a scaling amount based on number of rejections. 2 R: 8 Solution #3: Delete love potion. Introduce a skill in dramatics called strut which is an active lust for 3.5-4s balance. Introduce a skill in combat called BloodLust which does not cost balance but has a 15s cooldown and provides a defense against the next lust (similar to quicksilver). Reduce the pheromones tick timer from 15s to 12s. Player Comments: ---on 4/1 @ 21:33 writes: Interesting. What if there was a more commonly-available defense against lust (like quicksilver vs. aeon)? I actually like these suggestions, just floating another idea as well. ---on 4/1 @ 22:00 writes: I have replaced solution 3 which was previously just an extension to the timers for love potion and pheromones to something more radical based on Xenthos' idea and some envoys discussion. It could possibly be combined with solution 1 and probably should not be combined with solution 2, in my humble opinion. ---on 4/1 @ 22:22 writes: I don't think solution 3 really solves the problem. Often when lust is an issue it's when it's being spammed, which this would help minimally. I think solution 2 is better. ---on 4/2 @ 02:09 writes: Solution 2 + delete love potion. ---on 4/2 @ 04:11 writes: You're right, Shedrin, that suggestion is more of a brake to slow it down somewhat rather than equalizing things out entirely (if people are more comfortable with a less aggressive solution). I do think removing love potion and making an active skill for lusting for those who need it is a good way to go for all solutions, though (doesn't need to be limited to just sol3). ---on 4/2 @ 05:06 writes: I don't mind removing love potion, but it will have an effect on fighting enemy list classes. ---on 4/2 @ 18:32 writes: I think removing love potion will impact enemy list classes less than it seems. Melders are already being changed to no longer spamming dissolve on every enemy in room, instead operating on a 1 or all for power, same as bards do. Bards have already have truedeaf to counter them and those are the two biggest enemy list classes. ---on 4/2 @ 22:07 writes: I think lust in general is actually unfairly punishing enemy list classes. I prefer solution 2 here with the eq to reject all scaling at 2s per rather than being fixed. Instead of reject all, maybe a reject syntax can be added instead, like how you can enemy or ally multiple people in one command. Love potion aside, there aren't many skills that require the target to spend a longer amount of bal/eq to "cure" than to put the "affliction" on. Against certain classes or with certain combinations this makes lust a very effective pseudo-hinder. Love potion just takes this problem even further in these match- ups. ---on 4/3 @ 04:29 writes: Solution 1 or 2 with a scaling eq based off number rejected. ---on 4/3 @ 13:26 writes: I think solution 3 solves a different but related problem which is how hindering pheromones/love potion can be in small fights/1v1. I believe the ideal solution to explore would be to combine sol. 3 and 1 personally. We can then adjust the reject time again if we need to. ---on 4/13 @ 07:24 writes: Solution 3 as it stands will render pheromones completely useless. I'm fine with introducing a quicksilver-like mechanic for lust, and to also additionally lower rejection balance costs (solution 3+1), but pheromones timer needs to be faster, not slower, than bloodlust cooldown. Even if pheromones is faster, bloodlust will already render it completely useless in group settings, since it's a random chance to select ONE enemy to lust. In a 1v1, then, it needs to retain some use. Of course, an alternative is to completely change pheromones to do something more interesting, which I'm also okay with, though that's not in the scope of this report. ---on 4/13 @ 07:32 writes: Actually, thinking about it, even if pheromones timer is faster than bloodlust cooldown, it'll still be nerfed hugely - say that it ticks every 10s while bloodlust is 15s cooldown. It'll take FOUR ticks, the fourth tick, to lust the target ONCE. If the pheromones effect is objectionable for some reason, I'm fine with changing it entirely to do something else instead. ---on 4/13 @ 13:52 writes: I'd rather change pheremones and not introduce solution 3. Pheremones is very strong to OP against enemy-list reliant classes. And I'd rather not introduce another mechanic like in Solution 3 unless we really need to. ---on 4/14 @ 15:23 writes: Yes, currently solution 3 would make pheromones the only love like effect in the game but it would still be a significant nerf and wouldn't do anything other than stripping the lust defense in 1v1s. We could shorten the pheromones tick as you suggest to something 10-12s in the meantime which would passively lust in 1v1 situations at most every other tick (20s-24s) which would still have a use but would increase the shortest lust time by 60% in the second case (from 15s to 24s). I'll update solution 3 to say 12s so that pheromones still has a use but is less brutal in 1v1 situations. If that's still too much then maybe pheromones should just be reworked. ---on 4/15 @ 00:55 writes: Please rework pheromones. 12s timer on pheromones will make it tick once ever 60s, not every 20/24s. The mechanics of bloodlust will make it take more than "every other tick". This is a model of what will happen with pheromones: https://ada-young.appspot.com/pastebin/Ei2i7rju ---on 4/15 @ 01:03 writes: Opposed to solution 3 without a pheromones rework - or if it must go in without a rework, then pheromones should be made temporarily immune to bloodlust until it is reworked. In some cases, being nerfed slightly due to a wider-reaching change and waiting for followup buffs is fine. However, in this case, you're effectively deleting pheromones until any followup makes it usable again - and I'm not going to support that on one of the few abilities in the skillset that is already very limited and unversatile due to the difficulty of switching psionic locks. ---on 4/16 @ 00:50 writes: You're totally right that I didn't model how pheromones interacts properly with bloodlust. On running simulations similar to what you posted it looks like that if the tick time was made 9s it would result in 22.8s average time between lusts and if it was made 8s it'd be 17.4s between lusts (simulations here, averages based on a 5 minute period 1v1 https://pastebin.com/twk0jbTr). The report is finalized so I can't change the numbers but if we do end up going with solution 3 the timer should probably be in the 8s-9s range instead. ---on 4/16 @ 19:18 writes: Solution 1 or 2 is fine. I think solution 3 should be its own report due to how far reaching of a mechanic change that is. Abstain there. ---on 4/18 @ 03:17 writes: Cost to REJECT ALL should probably scale up. you already cap at 5 people